BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.
Complaint No.19 of 2015
Instituted On:02.03.2015
Decided On: 24.06.2015.
Parveen Goyal aged about 35 years, Business man, son of Shri Devki Nandan resident of house No.18/492, Sardar Nagar, Moga.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Hem Honda, Ferozepur G. T. Road, Moga through its Managing
Director/Prop/Partner.
2. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Limited (HMSI) Plot No.1
& 2, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, District Gurgaon (Haryana) 122050.
……… Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Coram: Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Smt Vinod Bala, Member
Smt. Bhupinder Kaur Mamber
Present: Sh. Ashok Sharma Advocate Cl. for the complainant.
Sh. V.K.Dhir Adv. Cl. for the opposite parties
C.C. 19 of 2015 \\2//
ORDER
(S.S.Panesar, President)
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Hem Honda, Ferozepur G. T. Road, Moga through its Managing Director/Prop/Partner (herein-after referred to as ‘opposite party No.1’) & Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Limited (HMSI) Plot No.1 & 2, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, District Gurgaon (Haryana) 122050 (herein-after referred to as ‘opposite party No.2’) directing them to replace the Activa, besides Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and also to grant any other relief to which this Forum may deem proper.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Honda Activa from opposite party No.1 for a consideration of Rs. 53,306/-in which includes registration charges, insurance charges, lamination, temporary number and accessory charges vide invoice No.14IN01798 dated 29.10.2014. Opposite party No.1 is a dealer, whereas, opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the vehicle in dispute. The opposite parties gave one year warranty on the above said vehicle. It has been alleged that after a few days from the date of purchase the vehicle in question went out of order and the engine of the vehicle started giving voice. In this regard, complainant approached opposite party No.1 for a number of times and requested it to replace the vehicle in dispute as there is
C.C. 19 of 2015 \\3//
a manufacturing defect in the engine and the same could not be removed. But opposite party No.1 did not listen to the request of the complainant, rather, it refused to replace the same without any rhyme or reason. Complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite party, but without any result. Non-replacing the defective vehicle in dispute by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Due to the negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from mental and physical harassment and economic loss. Hence the present complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared through their counsel Sh.V.K.Dhir Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus-standi; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; that the complaint is false and frivolous; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has purchased ne Activa from opposite party No.1 on 29.10.2014, Brand new and fully tested from the qualified engineer of the company; that the complainant has also availed services from the opposite party company with his signatures on the job card and other relevant documents after fully satisfied regarding working of the vehicle in dispute; that the complainant lodged a complaint through gmail to the company on 26.11.2014 with regard to defect in the vehicle and the opposite party removed the defect in the vehicle on
C.C. 19 of 2015 \\4//
01.12.2014 and that the opposite parties are still ready and willing to get checked the said vehicle from any authorized engineer of some reputed company. On merits, the facts narrated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and other allegations of the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-6 and closed his evidence.
5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.O.P.1,2/1 to Ex. O.P.1,2/5 of Sh Gurmit Singh authorised signatory, Sh Gurjinder Singh Technician, Sh Gagan Toor Technician, Sh Harman Technician, Sh Jagmeet Singh Head Technician and copies of documents O.P-1,&2/6 to Ex.O.P-1&2/12 and closed their evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.
7. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant purchased one Activa moped from opposite party No.1 for a consideration of Rs.53,306/- inclusive of registration charges, insurance charges, lamination, temporary number and accessory charges vide invoice No.14IN01798 dated 29.10.2014., copy whereof is Ex.C-3. Opposite party No.1 is the dealer while opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the
C.C. 19 of 2015 \\5//
vehicle in dispute. At the time of making the purchase, the opposite parties gave one year warranty on the above said vehicle. After a few days from the date of purchase the vehicle in disptue went out of order and the engine of the vehicle started giving noise. Complainant approached opposite party No.1 for a number of times and requested to replace the vehicle in dispute as there is a manufacturing defect in the engine and the same could not be removed. But opposite party No.1 did not listen the request of the complainant, rather, refused to replace the same without any rhyme or reason. Non-replacing the defective vehicle in dispute by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently contended that the complaint as framed is not maintainable The complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is admitted that the complainant purchased one Honda Activa from opposite party No.1 on 29.10.2014 Brand new and fully tested from the qualified engineer of the company. The complainant also availed services from the opposite party company with his signatures on the job card and other relevant documents being fully satisfied regarding working of the vehicle in dispute. It is an admitted that the complainant lodged a complaint through gmail to the company on 26.11.2014 with regard to defect in the vehicle and the opposite party removed the defect in the vehicle on 01.12.2014 and the opposite parties are still ready and willing to get
C.C. 19 of 2015 \\6//
checked the said vehicle from any authorized engineer of some reputed company. Instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law and it is contended that the complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.
10. There is no denying the fact that the complainant purchased one Activa Honda from opposite party No.1 vide retail Invoice No.14IN01798 dated 29.10.2014., copy whereof is Ex.C-3. It is also admitted fact that the warranty for one year was also given by the opposite parties to the complainant at the time of sale of the vehicle in dispute, copy of warranty deed accounts for Ex.C-5. It is also admitted fact the vehicle developed some defects regarding which the complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite parties, who repaired the same to the satisfaction of the complainant. But, however, lateron the vehicle again developed the same defect regarding which a complaint was lodged by the complainant with the opposite parties by gmail. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties has failed to remove the defect of the vehicle in dispute and if the defect was beyond scope of repair or it was manufacturing in nature, the opposite parties were under legal obligation to replace the vehicle in dispute with a new vehicle of the same quality and make without charging anything from the complainant. But, however, there is nothing on record to reach the conclusion that vehicle in dispute suffered from any manufacturing defect. No report of the expert has been adduced
C.C. 19 of 2015 \\7//
on record to the effect that the defect pointed out by the complainant was manufacturing in nature and that could not be removed by means of repair. In such a situation, it cannot be presumed that the defect in the vehicle in dispute is manufacturing in nature or that the replacement of the vehicle was required to satisfy the claim of the complainant. But, however, since the vehicle in dispute is within its warranty period, therefore, it is a duty cast upon the opposite parties to ensure that the vehicle in dispute gives trouble free service to the complainant at least within warranty period. Since the defect in the vehicle in dispute is subsisting and the opposite parties have failed to remove the defect in the vehicle in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant, despite making several requests, therefore, it is presumed that the opposite parties are deficient in service. Consequently, this complaint stands disposed off with a direction to the opposite parties to remove the defect of the vehicle in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging anything from him. within a period of thirty days of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
(Bhupinder Kaur) (Vinod Bala) (S.S.Panesar)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:24.06.2015.
